Transitions from and to roll-your-own tobacco, perceptions and health beliefs among smokers: findings from the EUREST-PLUS ITC Europe Surveys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The prevalence of roll-your-own tobacco (RYO) in Europe has been increasing. The aim of this study was to investigate transitions between factory-made (FM) cigarettes and RYO in a longitudinal sample of European smokers, and their perceptions of relative harmfulness and knowledge of health effects. METHODS: We used data collected from the EUREST-PLUS ITC 6 European Country (6E) Surveys in 2016 (n = 6011 smokers) and in 2018 (n = 6027) in Germany, Greece, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Spain. A total of 3195 cohort respondents were interviewed in both years. Use of RYO and FM, knowledge of health effects of smoking as well as perceptions about RYO were assessed. We used logistic regression models to explore sociodemographic correlates of transitions from one product to the other, of perceptions and knowledge related to smoking health effects. RESULTS: Approximately 7.4% of exclusive FM smokers transitioned to RYO and 29.5% of exclusive RYO smokers transitioned to FM cigarettes from 2016 to 2018. RYO use in 2018 was more frequent among smokers of low education and income, but none of these factors were associated with transitions. Most RYO smokers perceived RYO as cheaper than FM and 21.7% of them considered RYO to be less harmful than FM. Knowledge of the health effects of smoking was not associated with type of product smoked. CONCLUSIONS: RYO is popular among European smokers; its lower cost seems to be a major factor for RYO users; reasons for transitions to and from RYO are less clear and need to be further investigated.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".